Tag: Research

Which Comes First, Research or Writing?

As I write the reference book, I continually have the conundrum compared to the which came first, the chicken or the egg. In this case, it’s the research or the writing.

Reference and access is a large part of my daily duties, as with many archivists. It comes naturally to me, and I have my routine to provide good reference and customer service. When I agreed to write this book I thought “Great! I get to write about what I do every day.” Because reference is one of my favorite parts of my job, I initially thought it would be easy. Not that writing an entire book is easy, but I already have solid knowledge about reference and access.

What I’ve discovered, not completely unsurprisingly, is that it’s easy to write about what my staff and I do every day, but that doesn’t mean it encompasses all aspects of reference and access. I knew that I’d do extensive research to make sure I address all types of institutions, practices, policies, history, context, etc. The research is crucial also to provide resources to archivists who want to learn more about specific aspects, as well as demonstrate developments and foundations of reference.

On the one hand, I can easily make notes and outlines about what each book section/topic needs, but on the other hand I need to read what is the vast amount of literature out there for citations. So I find myself again in the same place as when I wrote my dissertation – where to stop researching and write, or do I just write and fill in with research.

Truly, it’s best to go back and forth; do some research and write about it, then write about your ideas and find the research to go with it. I love doing research. Searching through databases, reading footnotes to find more literature, exploring the non-archival writing to see how others use/view archives, and reading what I find. I especially love learning – how reference evolved through history, how different institutions provide services, ideas for outreach, and I even enjoy reading policy manuals. Some of this is not just for the book but also how I can improve and evolve services at my own institution.

I really enjoy writing as well, but that of course is much harder. Sometimes the thoughts are there but don’t come out. When I’m on a good writing spree, I just let the thoughts flow. It can be harder to find literature to justify what I wrote, but I also do not need a citation for every single sentence or idea. I know I have something to say, and I will say it so that readers can use, interpret, and reconfigure the content to best serve their needs.

I see this struggle in many people that I talk to and article submissions I read: too much research without enough analysis or interpretation. We are all adept and finding information, so we don’t need just the references, but why that literature matters. In the case of this book, I don’t need to make an argument for reference and access, but instead provide a wide array of concepts, theories, policies, and practices so anyone who reads the book is able to find something that will help with their job or possibly for future scholarship.

So, there is no one solution of which to do first – research or writing. But it is important to not get too caught up in the research so that the writing doesn’t happen. Currently, I’m at a point where I need to step away from the research for a while and just write. I have a lot of notes, quotes, and so far 263 citations in 71 pages. Likely, some of those will be removed, combined, or moved to “works consulted,” and I want to make sure they don’t disrupt the reading. Writing should reflect the author’s thoughts and ideas, and the research is to enhance them and provide further reading. So here goes!

Tribute to Brenda Banks

I was saddened to hear about the passing of Brenda S. Banks. In an indirect way, she affected my interest in publishing. In 2009, I was working at the Auburn Avenue Research Library on African American Culture and History in downtown Atlanta. At the time, she was teaching “Administration and Use of Historical Archives” at Georgia State University in the Heritage Preservation Program. When she decided to not teach anymore, she called my colleagues to see if they were interested. Due to other commitments, neither of them could do it so they asked me. With only a couple weeks before the semester started, I agreed.

I used her syllabus and spoke to her about the class. I was excited to teach, even though I hadn’t taught before. This was 5 years after I finished library school and because at the time I was working on my PhD, I did not do much to keep up with archival literature. Teaching the class forced me, in a good way, to examine the literature and read much that I hadn’t read before. I taught the class three times and it helped me become an adjunct in the Master of Archival Studies at Clayton State University.

Naturally, it was much different reading, interpreting, and analyzing the literature as a professor than as a student, especially with several years of practical experience. With every class I taught since, I look for a wide variety of books and articles to incorporate into a syllabus to provide students with a breadth of resources. I spent hours researching and reading books and articles and gained a familiarity with specific resources plus ways to research different topics both within archival literature as well as related professions.

Teaching was one avenue that led to my interest in publishing. The knowledge of resources helped me while editor of Provenance, in that I frequently recommended literature for authors to read to help with their articles. It also proved beneficial while on the SAA Publications Board to again recommend resources to authors, but also understand gaps and needs in archival literature. And it continues to help as I write the reference book.

So thank you Brenda, for your role in leading me down this path.

Identity Crisis: Archivist vs. Historian

When I started library school I knew I wanted to be an archivist. I went on to get a PhD because it would complement my library degree. Also, I scoured job postings while in school and saw that often the head/director level required or preferred a second advanced degree or a PhD. My PhD is in Modern History and Literature, with an emphasis on history. I didn’t plan to be a historian, I only wanted to be an archivist, but I ended up being both.

My writing as an archivist consists of one peer-reviewed article, several in Archival Outlook, book reviews, finding aids, blog posts, and news updates for my campus. My writing as a historian consists of one peer-review article and a dissertation. I find that while writing a book, it’s the historian in me that currently leads my writing. Yet, I am not writing a history book.

There are many benefits to this, much of it technical: using passive voice as an exception rather than a rule, citing (overciting?) everything, mostly clear and concise writing. That’s not to say that I won’t need editing help or that I write perfectly, but I learned much when I went through the writing wringer with my dissertation committee.

One of the challenges I keep facing while writing the reference and access book is the desire to prove everything. I don’t need to “prove” that reference and access are needed – we all know it, believe it, and live it. While of course I cite my sources, the purpose of this book is to provide both broad and in-depth theories and practices about reference and access. I want to include a wide range of resources, both for evidence and further reading.

What I frequently catch myself doing, however, is the I-need-to-find-as-many-sources-as-possible-to-prove-this-thought/idea/theory/practice/history. I finished my dissertation five years ago and I’m a bit surprised how this impulse lingers. As anyone who wrote a dissertation or thesis can attest to, there is a compulsion fueled by committee expectations to be overly thorough so they believe you know what you’re writing about. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be very time-consuming and often unnecessary.

I am learning much as I write this book: about my writing style, time management, and what historian habits I need to break. What I find most interesting is deciding what archivists need to know about reference and access. It’s impossible to write about everything, though I’ll do my best to come close. There are times where the in-depth analysis is necessary, and others where it’s a mention with suggestions with further reading. The latter contributes to my I-need-to-find-as-many-sources-as-possible-to-prove-this-thought/idea/theory/practice/history. But really, it is not my responsibility to point out every single resource available on the topic. Instead, I raise the topic and point to a few key resources and, if appropriate, even mention that there is much written about a topic.

I do have to pare down some of what I already wrote, but it’s easier to have too much then reduce instead of the other way around. Plus, I really enjoy reading the voluminous amounts of literature that I never read before. It will be hard to not include every single book or article I look at, but I hope what I do include entices interest to delve further.

Dealing with Writer’s Block

When I started this blog my goal was to post at least once a week (other than CFPs and news about publications). The last few weeks have been quiet, as I’ve had writer’s block with my book, which affected this blog. Thankfully, I’m in better writing and researching habits again.

I have no evidence, but I expect that all writers are blocked at times. For me, there are different levels of writer’s block. While writing my dissertation, sometimes I’d turn on my laptop, sit down, and suddenly several minutes would go by before I realized that I could not even focus on the screen. That type of block was more fatigue than anything, and I’d shut down my laptop and not write that day. The next day I’d try again and it would be fine.

Another type is just needing short breaks to process and think. At those times, I’ll write a little bit, take a short break, then write more, take a break, etc. Often, not writing but thinking about what to write helped sort my ideas into something more coherent, therefore easier to write about.

Then there’s the major writer’s block, which is what I just went through. It encompasses frustration, insecurity, lack of focus, wondering if I’m going in the right direction, and a whole host of mostly emotional obstructions that inhibit writing. I ask myself numerous questions: is this I topic I should address? will the details be helpful or too much? how do I make a dry topic interesting? will this information be outdated sooner rather than later?

What helped me move past this is talking out some very specific questions with the series editor. I can’t emphasize enough how immensely helpful it was to have a conversation where I voiced my concerns and talked through the depth and direction of specific topics and sections. As I wrote in an earlier post, it’s very easy to go down the research rabbit hole. I truly enjoy learning and reading about archives, but not everything I read about reference and access needs to go in the reference and access book. I’m getting better at deciding what needs to be addressed in-depth, and what can be mentioned and then suggest further resources.

I expect that in the next year while I write the book, I will continue to have bouts of writer’s block. Hopefully, it will happen less and less or not last long. Just know, that you are not alone when you struggle with writing and while there are many ways to handle it, one of the best is to talk it through with a friend, colleague, family, or whomever. It truly helps.

Forced Writing: On the Tenure-track

Most of us became archivists because we love history, organizing, libraries, and “old stuff.” Though we had to write during library school, many of us did not plan on writing more than finding aids. However, many academic librarians and archivists are expected to publish as one aspect of receiving tenure. It is stressful when your job is contingent on fulfilling this obligation.

If writing isn’t a passion, forced publishing is definitely a challenge. At my institution, obtaining tenure has requirements related to librarianship, publishing/creative works, and service. When I started, I was one year out of finishing my PhD. Obtaining that degree made me much better prepared for the publishing requirement and for that I am grateful. Library schools may emphasize writing, but it’s more of a requirement for that degree than to pursue publishing.

It is stressful for many tenure-track archivists to publish. As noted previously, I’ve had many discussions with people who wonder if they have anything to say (see here and here). There is a time requirement to go up for tenure, therefore a time requirement to publish articles or book chapters. On the one hand, it forces you to be proactive in deciding what to write about, as Eira Tansey wrote. On the other hand, it can be an incredible amount of pressure.

I’m not well-versed in tenure requirements across all academic institutions, but I will generalize that many require publishing peer-review articles. Having one or more articles evaluated by professional peers is much more rigorous, therefore has more weight, than publishing newsletter articles, blog posts, or other informal writings. Writing a book has merit as well, but as we have fewer book publishing options than other academic disciplines, that is harder to accomplish (plus it takes a lot longer).

Having gone through the tenure process and as a supervisor to library faculty, here’s what I can offer:

  • Pick a journal first. Find one that aligns with your interests and passions. Read a few of the recent articles, browse past issues to see topics, etc. Contact the editor to ask if your idea would be of interest. And read the information for authors. While we all may aspire to write for The American Archivist, it’s highly competitive and you might be better off starting with another journal.
  • Don’t want to write about archives practices? Depending on your institution’s requirements, consider publishing in non-archives journals. Try library or other academic disciplinary journals. Do archival research on a topic of interest. (Blatant self-promotion, I used the archival research I did for my dissertation to publish in Reception: Texts, Readers, Audiences, History)
  • Start with an idea. You don’t have to have an exact argument to start writing. Once you research and write out your thoughts, it will evolve and become focused. Interested in digital forensics? privacy and confidentiality? outreach? Have you read an article or book that you strongly disagree with or you think could be improved or reacted to? Read a few books and articles to see what’s been said, what you agree/disagree with, then write.
  • Find colleagues with similar interests to see about co-authorship.
  • Start with a library school paper or presentation and expand it.
  • Write about something that interests you. It’s hard to be disciplined about writing when you have little or no interest in the subject.
  • Write about a project you completed, an initiative you started, or your experience with any aspect of archives. While theory is important, many archivists are interested in others’ practices that they can implement or adapt.
  • Write, write, write.
  • Start earlier rather than later. It can take 1-2 years to publish an article, taking into account the writing, peer-review, editing, and final publication. There’s no guarantee of acceptance, and you may have to submit, resubmit, or rewrite more than one article or for more than one journal. (Yes, an article I wrote with colleagues was rejected)
  • Create goals, timelines, outlines, number of pages to write a day/week, place to write, music to listen to, number of diet cokes to drink, and so forth. When you accomplish your set goals (say, weekly), reward yourself.
  • Make writing a priority and be disciplined. Carve out time daily/weekly (whatever works for you) to keep momentum and progress.
  • Write, write, write.
  • Take it a little at a time. Thinking about the entire article can be overwhelming, so focus on a section. Before you know it, you’ll have the whole article written.
  • Find support, whether at your institution, other colleagues, a writing group, or friends. Talking to people about your ideas or having others read your writing can go a long way to stay motivated.
  • Write, write, write.
  • Allow yourself to gripe and complain. Then let it go and keep writing.
  • Don’t try to make an article perfect. Be coherent, concise, grammatically correct (or at least mostly), and cite your sources. But remember that editors and reviewers will always have feedback, suggestions, and grammatical corrections.
  • Write one article at a time.
  • Don’t be overambitious. For example, if you are interested in doing a survey but don’t have experience in qualitative/quantitative analysis, it could be difficult to take on such a project.
  • Write, write, write.

 

 

Call: SAA Research Forum

I have yet to attend SAA’s Research Forum, though I’m always intrigued by it. If you’ve presented or attended, please share your experience in the comments.

Here is the information: http://www2.archivists.org/proceedings/research-forum/2016/call.

They also share everything from past Forums, including posters, research reports, and peer-review research papers: http://archivists.org/proceedings/research-forum.

Research: Choose Your Own Adventure

Research is like a choose your own adventure book – picking among multiple paths to see how it ends. To me, research is both fun and challenging. Fun, because I enjoy digging, reading, and seeing what I find. Challenging, because it’s hard to decide where to stop.

As I write the reference and access book, I discover more and more resources I wasn’t aware of. I’m reading historic books to familiarize myself with the development of reference services and how they were viewed by the profession. Being a good researcher, I frequently look at the footnotes. While I’m under no delusion that I know all the books and articles written about reference, I am surprised at how many cited sources I didn’t know about. It’s quite interesting and emphasizes how important scholarship has always been for the profession. One book leads to another, which leads to an article, which leads to a report, and so on. Hence, the “choose your own adventure” analogy. Theoretically, I know there is a finite number of sources published, but it’s difficult to see the end of the research trail.

However, there is a downside. I want to read everything, yet I know that is impossible. I went through this when I wrote my dissertation. My concern was (is) missing that crucial piece that when others read the book they’ll wonder why I didn’t include it. That’s an emotional reaction rather than a logical one.

Intellectually I know that I can’t, nor shouldn’t, include everything written about reference and access. It is a huge topic and I will drive myself crazy if I try to include everything. Keeping the readers in mind, I want to provide a breadth of resources they will find helpful while not being overwhelming. Not all of these references need to be citations, but could be in a “further reading” section.

I wish I had the magic formula on finding that balance. At my job, I frequently help students with research and often warn them about doing too much research. Advice that I need to take myself. It is hard to decide how much is enough. For example, there is general consensus of the importance of access throughout pretty much all historical scholarship. So, how many citations are enough? Is it worth including not just the usual players but some of the more obscure and lesser-known archives manuals and writings?

Right now, I’m still in the early stage of writing. I’m following the citations, getting items through interlibrary loan, and reading much that I’ve never read before. The choose-your-own-adventure I’m on is fun, albeit time consuming. I’m nearly to the point where what I read is pretty repetitive, which is one way to know that I’ve read enough about that particular topic (though I’ll still probably read more). My other practice is to force myself to stop and finish writing that section. Then as I write, questions will arise and I’ll notice gaps, then do more research to fill in where necessary. Luckily, I have many more research adventures to go.

Guest Post: Developing a Research Agenda

thank you Eira Tansey for your contribution!

When I was on the academic archivist job market a few years ago, I interviewed at one institution where I was warned during lunch to have a very narrowly focused answer to the dean’s inevitable question about my research agenda. I was strongly advised to make it clear that I had a tightly-defined research agenda, that my research interests weren’t all over the place, and that I was aiming for high-profile titles in which to publish my work. The only problem was that at the time I was searching for my first professional position, and as a paraprofessional I had only just started dipping my toe into publishing — all I had in print with a chapter in Kate Theimer’s book on description. Furthermore, my graduate program did not heavily emphasize or acculturate students into pursuing publishing opportunities. I don’t recall how I answered the question during my meeting with the dean (however I do remember his bone-crushing handshake!), but the broader question of “What is my research agenda?” is a question where my answers are rapidly evolving.

I lucked out and ended up at an institution that is a far better fit than the previously-mentioned one for a multitude of reasons. At my institution, librarians have faculty status and we have multiple paths to tenure (see our criteria: http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/libraryfaculty/docs/criteria2005.pdf). Some library faculty choose to build their tenure case (and preceding reappointment and promotion applications) around publications, others choose different routes. Since I started two years ago, I have prioritized building up my record around “publishing or creative works.” Unlike some institutions that clearly articulate how many articles are required for a successful tenure bid, or specifications on journal rankings, our criteria is very open-ended. There are pros and cons to this. On the one hand, it allows generous flexibility in choosing experimental publishing outlets (new interdisciplinary open-access title with funky journal design layouts? sure, why not!). On the other hand, because we don’t have clear guidelines, there are fewer objective benchmarks to be evaluated against.

I should pause here to describe what I mean when I say a “research agenda.” I don’t believe you have to have faculty status, professional status, or even a full-time job working in archives to have a research agenda. You don’t have to know statistical methods or have grant funding (although obviously the more you have of both, the more you can do!). But you do have to have an idea worth exploring, more than some superficial things to say about it, and the ability to eventually sit down, tune out distractions, and write. As far as I can discern, a “research agenda” is a broad scope of work in various stages across one’s career that has interconnecting intellectual tissue underneath what might look like many unrelated interests. When I think of well-known archivists and imagine their research agendas, I think of how certain archivists are associated with certain areas of archival theory and practice (e.g., Rand Jimerson on archives and social justice, Terry Cook and Helen Samuels with appraisal, Mark Greene with processing and collection development, etc).

When I first started getting serious about committing to professional writing, I chafed against the idea of a research agenda. It seemed so restrictive, and I have so many boundless interests, why not move from topic to topic, even if they’re completely unrelated? But as I’ve accrued some publications on my CV, I’m beginning to see the wisdom of targeting my focus towards a certain direction for the foreseeable future. To contribute something worth publishing, one should be familiar with the literature written on that subject. Depending on the topic, this could mean a lot of writing — and then you have to figure out where your contribution fits into that landscape. It is a lot of work to review literature on an existing subject (https://archivespublishing.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/how-do-i-learn-everything/), and I’m beginning to see one of the greatest arguments for having a focused research agenda: you don’t have to reacquaint yourself with a whole new body of knowledge every time you begin a new project.

I should note here that I think this process of writing about a bunch of different topics, and then finding one’s calling towards a specific area is fairly common. Certainly, it echoes the many college students who have undeclared majors for a long time, or how many young professionals switch career fields. For fun, I looked at the CVs of some well-known archivists, and you can certainly see how over time, their output begins to coalesce around a few main topics (for example, Mark Greene http://www.uwyo.edu/ahc/_files/vitas/m-greene-vita.pdf).

Right now I’m feeling the call to explore the intersection of archives, the environment, and climate change. I feel compelled to build a research agenda around this in a way I haven’t felt about other topics. This is occurring while my other “scattered focus” writing projects are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I have a whole range of issues I still care about (privacy! erasure and marginalization of archival labor! everything ever to do with appraisal! public records laws!), and every day I think things like “What we really need is a comparative study of unionization among archivists! WHY ISN’T ANYONE WRITING ABOUT THIS? I WANT TO READ ABOUT IT! Should I work on this?!?!?!” so I’m at a juncture where I feel a little twinge of sadness at the idea of not trying to write about everything unexplored. It doesn’t help that I have a “future ideas to pursue” list of dozens of half-baked ideas I add to on a semi-regular basis. Mostly I just try to be vocal about the topics I think are unexplored within archives-land and trust that someone, at some point, will feel inspired to write all the articles I know I could never manage on my own, but that I so desperately want to read.

How have you decided what to write about? Do you “write what you want to read”? Do you enter the conversation like a game of double dutch (credit for this to Jarrett Drake: https://snaproundtable.wordpress.com/2015/12/17/on-the-job-training-publishing/)? Has your research focus shifted as you grow as a writer?

How Do I Learn Everything?

As I noted in a previous post, a challenge potential authors face when writing is “others know more than I do” or “I don’t know enough about a topic.” We read tons in grad school, but who remembers everything? How do the “experts” become experts? There’s so much out there, it’s impossible to read it all.

Of course, graduate school is the first introduction to scholarship. However, it’s easier to focus on getting through the semester and forgetting what you when starting classes the next semester. Students have to read so much that it’s overwhelming to try to think of the resources post-grad school. I know I remember very little about what I read in library school. After graduation, who wants to spend their free time reading archives books and journals? It’s good to take a break. But it’s hard to get back into reading a full issue of a journal, pick up a book, etc.

So how does one start? It depends on what your ultimate goals are. One way is to read material that relates directly to your job. When I had my first processing position, I read about hidden collections and other articles about processing. Reading about what you do helps the knowledge stick because you can apply it. You could also read about what you aspire to do. Building a core knowledge may help in an interview.

Writing and reading book reviews are also a good way. Some journals put out a call, but if you’re interested directly contact reviews editors to let them know of your interest. You may not always get your first choice, but reading anything is helpful. Alexandra Orchard wrote a post here recently explaining the American Archivist reviews portal. Remember, reviews need not be solely for books. The SNAP issue of Provenance has great reviews about conferences and other resources. If you come across any resource, ask a reviews editor if you can review it.

One way I learned about various resources was through teaching graduate classes. It prompted me to look at a wide variety of books and journals to find appropriate and informative reading for the students. Not everyone has an opportunity to create a syllabus, but you could use that idea. For example, if you weren’t able to take a class on digital forensics, start searching and skimming articles to build your own reading list. Or, look for syllabi online. Use Google to search for syllabi and limit to site:.edu. I frequently used that strategy to find sources for classes I taught.

It’s daunting to think about reading books and articles to keep up. One could spend hours every day reading and still not keep up. However, reading reviews, scanning tables of contents, reading abstracts, or just skimming the first few pages can be a good introduction. Then, you might remember the source and read it in full later if you need/want to. It can give you a breadth of knowledge, or at least an awareness of what is out there.

This is also a good strategy when embarking on a research and writing project. Trying to read every word written on a topic would be either impossible or take too long. Start with a few sources and use the footnotes to read a few other related items. Look at a book index or TOC to read about specific topics of interest. Then write about it. Even if your goal isn’t publication, writing out your thoughts can help. Don’t try to remember everything. Instead, focus on synthesizing ideas, practices, and theories.

Also, don’t limit yourself to scholarly sources. There are so many blogs, presentations, and other online writing that possibly synthesized the information for you. SAA provides access to some past conference recordings. More Podcast, Less Process provides interviews where archivists share their experiences. Read reports and other publications from organizations such as OCLC and CLIR.

There is so much out there and it’s hard to know where to start. Becoming an “expert” takes time. And, truly, few people know everything about all aspects of archives. So start slow, pick one or two topics you want to learn about, and dig in. Over time, through reading, attending conferences, work experience, and talking with colleagues, you will build great knowledge.

And if you have other tips please share in the comments!